God’s Devastating Request
God’s demand that Abraham sacrifice his long-awaited and beloved son as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of the land of Moriah (Gen 22:1-2) makes God appear absurd, unethical, cruel, inconsistent, and unreliable:

Absurd – It is totally absurd that the God of the universe who created every flock and herd, is hungry for the only little ewe lamb of the aged parents.

Unethical – How can God command the killing of an innocent person?

Cruel – How can God to be so cruel towards his own loyal servant to unconditionally demand that he murder his beloved son?

Unreliable – By demanding the life of Isaac, God reneges on his own promise to Abraham, “through Isaac shall your descendants be named (ביצחק יקרא לך זרע)” (Gen 21:12), making himself out to be a liar.

It was only a Test: God Never Intended
for Abraham to Slaughter Isaac

How the Torah Mitigates the Problem of the AkedahThe biblical story contains what seems to be a mitigating factor; it is the only episode among the biblical stories of Abraham that opens with the words: “God tested Abraham (וְהָ֣אֱלֹהִ֔ים נִסָּ֖ה אֶת־אַבְרָהָ֑ם)” (Gen 22:1). This opening softens readers’ criticism towards the cruelty of God,[1] since it communicates to the reader that God did not really wish for a human sacrifice of an only son from his aged servant, rather God merely wished for a demonstration of Abraham’s unconditional belief. To be sure, the end of the story proves its original intention (Gen 22:11-12).

The Rabbinic Expansion of the Theme: God Never Intended Isaac to Die
In the Babylonian Talmud, Ta’anit 4a, the Rabbis pick up on the concept of testing and take the next step. They assume that God never intended Isaac to be a burnt offering, and attempt to prove this through a midrashic reading of Jeremiah 7:31, in which the prophet states that God never wished for child sacrifice.

ולא עלתה על לבי – זה יצחק בן אברהם.

“And never entered my mind” – this refers to Isaac the son of Abraham.

Although Jeremiah is referring specifically to child sacrifice at Topheth / the Valley of Ben-hinnom, the Talmud extends the application to other stories in the Bible, including the Akedah.

God only meant for Abraham to Raise Isaac on the Altar In order to soften the problematic test even further, Rabbi Acha, imagining Abraham’s surprised reaction to the angel telling him to stop, offers a midrashic reading of God’s words (Genesis Rabbah 56:8).

Rabbi Acha said: Abraham became surprised [and said]. “These words are confusing. Yesterday you said (Gen 21:12), ‘For it is through Isaac that offspring shall be called for you.’ Then, you went back and said, ‘Take your son…’ And now [your angel] says to me, ‘Do not lay your hand upon the land’ – I am bewildered!” The Holy One, blessed be He responded: “Abraham, ‘I will not violate my covenant or change what I have uttered’ (Pss 89:35). When I said to you ‘take your son’ I never said to slaughter him. I merely said to ‘raise him up.’[2] I said this to you to demonstrate your belovedness (לשם חיבה), and you did my bidding. Now take him down.”

According to this source, God never intended to request Abraham to sacrifice his son. It was Abraham who mistakenly understood this as a command to do so.[3]

Another rabbinic text that supports the idea that God never intended for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac comes in the list of things created by God during twilight of the 6th day, the first Sabbath-eve of the week of Creation (Tanchuma [Buber] 17:2; ca. late 8th – 9th century).[4]

איילו של אברהם נברא בין השמשות.

Abraham’s ram was created at twilight.

Since God had already prepared the ram at creation, and it was waiting since then to replace Isaac, God planned all along for Abraham to sacrifice a ram and not his son.[5]

Questioning the Cruelty of the Test

Even granting that God never intended for Abraham to slaughter his son, and that testing of a human by God plays an important role in the Bible,[6] still the test is too cruel.[7] God’s demand of Abraham’s obedience to offer his only son stands against all human nature, and his cancelation of it only at the last moment by a messenger seems unbearable. What was the impetus and justification for such a cruel test?

Most likely, the Rabbis are trying to solve this very problem in their hermeneutical approach to the first words of the story: ויהי אחר הדברים האלה (Gen 22:1a). This phrase is technical, and simply means “sometime afterward.”[8] Early Jewish exegetes, however, seized upon the phrase as the definition of a chronological sequence of a story and connected it with one or more stories recounted previously.

The term דברים (plural of דבר) is interpreted either as “words” (e.g., Gen 39:17, 19; 44:4-7; Deut 1:1; 4:12) or as “acts, things” (e.g., Gen 18:25; 2 Chr 32:1).[9] Accordingly, ויהי אחר הדברים האלה is understood either as “After these words” or “After these acts/things.”

After these “Words”

Connected to the Birth of Isaac
In the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 89b, Rabbi Yossi ben Zimra interprets this phrase as “after the words of Satan.”

[To what does “after” refer?] Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Yossi ben Zimra: “After the words of Satan.” For it says (Gen 21:8), “And the child grew up and was weaned.” Satan said to the Almighty: “Sovereign of the universe! To this old man You graciously granted the fruit of the womb at the age of a hundred, yet of all that banquet which he prepared, he did not have one turtle-dove or pigeon to sacrifice before you!” God replied, “Yet were I to say to him, ‘Sacrifice your son before me,’ he would do so without hesitation.” Straightway, “God did test Abraham… And he said, ‘Take, I pray [נא], your son’ [Gen 22:1].”

This Midrash connects the story of the Akedah with the previous story concerning the long awaited birth of Isaac (Gen 21:5; cf. 17:17), and the aged parents’ celebration of the occasion, as it appears at the opening verses of the previous chapter (Gen 21:1-8). It does this by creating another dialogue, between God and Satan (not found in the story). This dialogue is built upon the story of Job, and is meant to explain why God tests Abraham.

By connecting the Akedah to the story of the miraculous birth of Isaac to elderly parents, the Midrash actually emphasizes the cruelty of the divine command to slaughter Isaac! Be that as it may, the intention of the midrash is to mitigate God’s cruelty by tying the test into Abraham’s unworthy behavior (not offering a sacrifice at the celebration) and laying some of the blame on Satan’s malicious words.[10]

This midrashic feature of bringing Satan into the Akedah story predates the rabbinic era, and can be found in the book of Jubilees (ca. 161-140 B.C. E.) and in the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo Philo (32:1-4).[11]

Jubilees 17:15-16

…[W]ords came in heaven concerning Abraham that he was faithful in everything which was told him and he loved the Lord and was faithful in all afflictions. And Prince Mastema came and he said before God, “Behold, Abraham loves Isaac, his son. And he is more pleased with him than everything. Tell him to offer him (as) a burnt offering upon the altar. And you will see whether he will do this thing. And you will know whether he is faithful in everything in which you test him.”[12]

Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo 32:1-2

[God] gave [Abraham] as son in his late old age and took him out of a sterile womb. And all the angels were jealous of him, and the worshiping hosts envied him. And since they were jealous of him, God said to him, “Kill the fruit of your body for me, and offer for me as a sacrifice what has been given to you by me.”[13]

Like the Talmud, Jubilees works with a Midrash on “these things,” but instead of “these things” referring back to the birth of Isaac or the words of Satan/Mastema, they refer to the report—absent in the Bible—of the positive account of Abraham’s faithfulness that made it up to heaven. Biblical Antiquities does not have this hook, but, like the Rabbis, it connects it to the story of the birth of Isaac. All three sources mitigate God’s behavior by creating a third party, angels whom God must convince of Abraham’s faithfulness.

Words between Isaac and Ishmael
A different legend appears in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (ca. 7th-8th centuries C. E.) on Gen 22:1.[14] The term דברים was understood also here as “words,” but in this case, it is not attributed to Satan / Prince Mastema, but to the dispute between Isaac and Ishmael.

The Akedah follows the story about contention between Isaac and Ishmael (Gen 21:9-21). This Targum embellishes the biblical story (22:1):

“And it came to pass after these words” that Isaac and Ishmael were in dispute. Ishmael said: “It is right for me to be the heir of my father, since I am his first-born son.” But Isaac said: “It is right for me to be the heir of my father, since I am the son of Sarah his wife, but you are the son of Hagar, the handmaid of my mother.” Ishmael answered and said: “I am more righteous than you, because I was circumcised when thirteen years old; and if it had been my wish to refuse, I would not have handed myself over to be circumcised.” Isaac answered and said: “Am I not now thirty-seven years old? If the Holy One, blessed be He, demanded all my members I would not hesitate.” Immediately, these words were heard before the Lord of the universe, and immediately, the word of the Lord tested Abraham, and said unto him, “Abraham,” and he said, “Here I am.”[15]

According to this source, the testing of Abraham is secondary to the testing of Isaac, pictured as 37 years old. Similar to the approach in the Talmud, it is Isaac’s “bragging” about his own righteousness, in response to Ishmael, that brings about God’s request that he demonstrate its true extent.

After these “Acts”

Acts of Kindness God Performs for Abraham
The interpretation of the term דברים as “acts” appears first in the retelling of the biblical story by Josephus Flavius in the end of the first century, where he refers to all acts of Abraham (Jewish Antiquities 1,223-224; ca. 93-94 C. E.):

And Abraham put his own happiness solely on the hope that on departing from life he should leave behind his son unscathed. He attained this, to be sure, by the will of God, who, wishing to make trial of his piety toward Himself, appeared to him and after enumerating all the things that He had granted, how He had made him stronger than his enemies and how he had his present happiness and his son Isaac owing to His benevolence, asked him himself to offer this one as a sacrifice and victim to Himself, and He bade him to lead him up Mount Moriah, build an altar, and offer him as a burnt-offering.[16]

The acts upon which the Akedah follows are the benevolent acts God performed for Abraham.

The Act of Making a Treaty with Gerar
Later on, this approach is taken by the medieval commentator, Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam; 1080-1160 C. E.), who relates the Akedah to the act of the covenant that Abraham made with the Philistines, as recounted at the very end of the previous chapter (Gen 21:22-32):

[God said to Abraham:] You became proud of your son that I gave you and made a covenant with them [= the Philistines], now go and make him a burnt-offering, and let’s see what will happen with the covenant.

Rashbam attempts here to give God a reason to punish Abraham—pride in a son and an ill-conceived treaty. But why should one not be proud of his son? What is so terrible about a covenant?

Part 2 Abraham’s Role in Going
Along with the Akedah

Abraham Does Not Question God
Another problem with the story has to do with Abraham’s role—he doesn’t question God. Yet, the biblical stories of Abraham (Gen 12:1-25:10) demonstrate that he did not hesitate to question God when necessary, for example, regarding the promised land (Gen 15:7-8), and the promised offspring (17:15-17), and the destruction of Sodom and Gomora (18:16-33). Why then is Abraham silent now when he would have had ample grounds to question the command? He might have contrasted the harsh divine command with the divine promises that God had made to him, yet the story of the Akedah does not report any questioning on Abraham’s part.[17]

Astonishingly, Abraham does not even pray to God to cancel the command! On the contrary, as one who was motivated by his belief in God, Abraham is portrayed as immediately ready to perform the immoral act, to kill his son, without any hesitation or question. Has he prioritized his religious belief (בין אדם למקום) over his moral principles (בין אדם לחבירו)?

Turning Abraham Silence into a Merit for Future Generations The Rabbis were aware of some of these questions. Thus, GenesisRabbah 56:10 affirms that Abraham said to God:

“Sovereign of the universe! When you did order me, ‘Take your son, your only son’ (Gen 22:2), I could have answered, ‘Yesterday you promised me: “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named” (Gen 21:12), and now you say: “offer him there for a burnt offering” (Gen 22:2)?’ But, God forbid, I did not handle it so, but suppressedmyfeelingsof compassion in order to do your will. Even so, may it be your will, O Lord our God, that when Isaac’s children are in trouble, you will remember that binding in their favor and be filled with compassion for them.”[18]

Thus, some Rabbis were aware that Abraham did not struggle with God, rather he suppressedhisfeelings and completely controlled his thoughts. By doing so, Abraham is investing in his progeny’s future, assuming he knew or believed he would ever have progeny or that Isaac would somehow come out of this ordeal alive.

Reasons for not Criticizing Abraham
The Rabbis were not interested in rebuking Abraham, but rather in understanding, justifying, and praising him for his behavior.[19] There may be several reasons for this:

Peshat – The Rabbis mainly follow here the biblical judgment that Abraham was tested and found completely faithful (Gen 22:12). Therefore, he was praised and rewarded with blessings for his obedience and extraordinary act, as is detailed in Gen 22:16-18:

By myself have I sworn, said the Lord, for because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son; that in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because you have obeyed my voice.

Not Criticizing Patriarchs – The Rabbis generally avoided criticizing the patriarchs, the core founders of the Israelite/Jewish people. This tendency is apparent already from the book of Chronicles (for example, omitting the story of David’s affair with Bathsheba), and became a norm of the classical rabbinic literature, as well as in almost all pre-modern Jewish exegesis and liturgy.[20] Only from the seventh century onward, some subtle criticisms were expressed in some piyyutim concerning Abraham’s readiness to offer his son.[21]

Abraham Knew It Was Only a Test – The Rabbis may have thought that Abraham fully trusted that somehow God would save Isaac and fulfill his promises to him. (This fits with the Genesis Rabbah text in the previous section, where Abraham uses his obedience to extract a promise of protection from God for his offspring.) Perhaps, their opinion was similar to the one expressed in the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews 11:17-19 (ca. 60-69 C. E.):

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom it was said, ‘Through Isaac shall your descendants be named’ [Gen 21:12]. He considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.[22]

Saadia Gaon offers a similar thought in his commentary on Genesis: Abraham trusted that God in any case could resurrect Isaac in order to fulfill his promises to him. Indeed, some Jewish traditions even suggest that Isaac was actually killed and resurrected.[23]

Abraham: The Knight of Faith
All in all, the Rabbis consider Abraham’s silence a sign of nobility. They admire Abraham’s control of his fatherly love and mercy in order to implement God’s command. They illustrate his portrait as a paradigm of an ultimate trust and belief, the highest expression of unconditional adoration and obedience to God. Subsequently Abraham became “the father of believers,” or to cite the term coined later by the Danish philosopher, Søren A. Kierkegaard (1813-1855), “the knight of faith.”[24] This became Abraham’s defining characteristic for the subsequent generations, and secured eternal merit for Israel.[25]

The Rabbinic Defense
of God and Abraham

Rabbinic sources provide a rich plurality of perspectives on the Akedah, as they attempt to fill in the gaps of the narrative and deal with the philosophical and ethical problems it brings out. This discussion has shown how diverse and complex the rabbinic responses to the Akedah were. Some of the rabbinic exegetical traditions are reflected in Josephus’ writings and are rooted already in the Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature. Many of the exegetical traditions in turn influenced Jewish medieval biblical interpretations, which continue to have a great impact on Jews up to the present day.

Generally, the Rabbis are rarely critical of God or Abraham, and this holds true even in such a difficult story as the Akedah. They see God’s request as a mere test of Abraham’s unconditional belief in God. Several Rabbis seem to take it as a given that God did not really mean for Abraham to sacrifice his son, since he expresses elsewhere that he opposes human sacrifice (e.g., in the book of Jeremiah). They read the text as implying that Abraham actually misunderstood God’s intent, that he was merely to “raise him up” on the mountain, but not to kill him. Other Rabbinic exegetes further mitigated God’s apparent cruelty and justify God’s demand by either blaming Satan, Isaac, or Abraham himself for the necessity of God’s doing so.

This last point does, in fact, criticize Abraham, but only very lightly, suggesting that he failed to offer a sacrifice to God during the celebration of Isaac’s birth or that he expressed too much pride in him. Nevertheless, Abraham is viewed as a “knight of faith”: one who is truly motivated by his deep religious belief in God that a solution will be found, and therefore he fully obeyed him. Far from seeing Abraham’s apparent lack of feeling, or his suppression of it, as callousness, this stoicism suggested to the Rabbis that Abraham was actually quite noble.

___________________

Prof. Isaac Kalimi is Gutenberg-Forschungsprofessor in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies and Ancient Israelite History at Johannes Gutenberg- Universität Mainz, a Fellow of the Gutenberg Forschungskolleg at the same university, and Senior Research Associate at the University of Chicago. He holds a Ph.D. in Bible from the Hebrew University and has won a number of awards such as the Fulbright Distinguished Chair (2011) and the Franz-Delitizsch Research Award (2012). Kalimi is the author of many articles, edited volumes, and monographs, among which are The Retelling of Chronicles in Jewish Tradition and Literature: A Historical Journey; An Ancient Israelite Historian; Early Jewish Exegesis and Theological Controversy, and The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles which was is the recipient of the 2006 R.B.Y. Scott Prize of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies.

10/27/2015

[1] Similarly, the story in Job 1-2 provides the background that God only tests Job in order to reveal his loyalty to God, in bad as well as in good times.

[2] So as well Saadia Gaon in his commentary on the book of Genesis; M. Zucker, Saadya’s Commentary on Genesis: Edited with Introduction, Translation and Notes (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1984), pp. 141 (Arabic), 401 (Hebrew).

[3] In the medieval period, Rashi (1040-1105) follows this interpretation in his commentary on Gen 22:12.

[4] Compare to Abot 5:6, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen 22:13.

[5] This tradition may be reflected in the last panel of the mosaic floor of the synagogue at Beth Alpha (6th century C. E.). The panel presents the ram not as it described in the biblical text, that is, “a ram caught by its horns in a thicket,” but rather as one which is waiting on the side while it is tied to a bish with a rope.

[7] The Talmudic Rabbis do not criticize God’s request as was later done by the medieval Jewish commentator and philosopher, Rabbi Joseph ibn Caspi (Provence, southeastern France; 1280-1332), who asks, “How could the Lord command such an abomination to be done?” See Ch. Kasher, “‘How Could the Lord Command Such an Abomination to be done?’ – Rabbi Joseph ibn Caspi’s Critics on the Binding of Isaac,” Et-Hadaat 1 (1997), pp. 38-46 (Hebrew). Kasher discusses in detail also ibn Caspi’s various responses to this problematic theological issue. Generally, the responses are characterized by their philosophical and philological effort to soften or even detach the order from God. According to ibn Caspi, the greatness of Abraham is expressed at the end of the story: “Lay not your hand upon the lad” (Gen 22:12), that is, listening to God not to slaughter Isaac, rather than from the beginning of the story: “Take now your son… and offer him there for a burnt offering” (Gen 22:2).

[8] Compare the translation in the NJPS on Gen 22:1: “Some time afterward.”

[9] Compare, for example, Revised Standard Version (RSV) and New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): “After these things.” Similarly the phase is translated by the King James Version and the Jewish Publication Society: “And it came to pass after these things.” Luther-Bibel translates: “Nach diesen Geschichten”; and Die Bibel – Einheitsübersetzung: “Nach diesen Ereignissen.”

[10] But this approach opens a new theological front: How does a wicked power like Satan have such a decisive influence on God’s decisions? This problem was ignored altogether by the Rabbis, possibly because it has ample biblical precedent, namely the books of Chronicles and Job (Job 1:6-2:8 esp. 2:3; 1 Chr 21:1).

[11] See in detail I. Kalimi, “Go, I Beg You, Take Your Beloved Son and Slay Him!: Binding of Isaac in Rabbinic Literature and Thought,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 13 (2010), pp. 1-29.

[13] See D. J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo: A New Translation and Introduction,” in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, p. 345.

[14] Since Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen 21:21 refers to Mohammad’s wife Ayisha and his daughter Fatima (“He dwelt in the desert of Paran and took as wife Adisha. But he divorced her, and his mother took Fatima as wife for him from the land of Egypt.”), it cannot be dated earlier than 7th century C. E.

[15] Translation mine. In his commentary on Gen 22:1, Rashi affirms both rabbinic exegetical traditions – the one stated in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 89b, as well as that of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan – as equal alternative interpretations of the Scripture

[17] In fact, this situation is similar to what we have in the “first trial” of Abraham (Gen 12:1-7). The childless 75 year old Abraham and barren 65 year old Sarah (Gen 11:30; 12:4) were asked to go to a foreign land “that I (= God) shall show you” (12:1). Here, behold, God promises Abraham the land, although it is still inhabited by Canaanites (12:6)! Abraham accepts the promise with thanks, however without addressing any question (12:7).

[21] See S. Elizur, “Did Abraham Our Father Transgress by Binding of Isaac?” in I. Rosenson and B. Lau (eds.), The Binding of Isaac for His Descendants: The Aqedah from an Israeli View (Tel Aviv: Hirschberg Foundation, 2003), pp. 215-223 (Hebrew).

[22] It is noteworthy to mention that in a fragment of unknown provenance, Origen cites Hebrew 11:19 regarding Abraham’s belief that God could raise the dead. See K. Metzler, Origenes: Die Kommentierung des Buches Genesis (Origenes Werke mit deutscher Übersetzung 1/1; Berlin: W. de Gruyter / Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 2010), pp. 238-239. This line of thought, that is, the belief of Abraham and his trust in God, is further stressed by Martin Luther (1482-1546): “Thus Abraham relies on the promise and attributes to the Divine Majesty this power, that he [= God] will restore his dead son to life; for just as he saw that Isaac was born of a worn-out womb and of a sterile mother, so he also believed that he was to be raised after being buried and reduced to ashes, in order that he might have descendants, as the Epistle to Hebrews [11:9] states: ‘God is able to give life even to the dead.’ Accordingly, Abraham understood the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and through it alone he resolved this contradiction [between God’s promises to Abraham and his demand to sacrifice Isaac; I. K.], which otherwise cannot be resolved; and his faith deserves the praise…”; see M. Luther, Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25, in P. Jaroslav (ed.), Luther’s Works: American Edition (St. Louis: Concordia, 1964), vol. 4, p. 96.

[23] See Kalimi, “Go, I Beg You, Take Your Beloved Son and Slay Him!: Binding of Isaac in Rabbinic Literature and Thought,” pp. 23-25.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in the articles/divrei Torah on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of TABS.

TheTorah.com

A Historical and Contextual Approach TM

Mission

Project TABS (Torah And Biblical Scholarship) is an educational organization founded to energize the Jewish people by integrating the study of the Torah and other Jewish texts with the disciplines and findings of academic scholarship.